Skip to Main Content

Agenda item

Application DC/2016/01342 - Proposed conversion, extension and mansard roof extension of the property to form 21 residential units with onsite cycle and vehicular parking, refuse and amenity facilities. Newbridge House, Tudor Street, Abergavenny, NP7 5DH

Minutes:

We considered the report of the application which was presented for refusal for one reason.

 

The application had been presented to the Planning Committee on 3rd September 2019.  At this meeting, the Committee resolved to defer consideration of the application in order to allow officers to review the recommendation.  This was in response to information received by the Department for Works & Pension (DWP) on Monday 2nd September 2019.  The DWP had confirmed that a new 10-year lease had been signed on the entire building in December 2017, and covered the period from 2nd April 2018 to 1st April 2028. There was a tenant only break option at 31st March 2023.

 

The proposal is not considered to comply with the requirements of Policy E1 and would therefore fail to protect existing employment land from alternative developments.

 

The applicant’s agent, Mr. R. Chichester, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

 

·         Since the original submission the scheme has evolved to the proactive negotiations of the Local Planning Authority’s professional officers and the Design Commission for Wales.

 

·         The amended plans reflect all of the agreed variations to the proposed development.

 

·         The amended scheme is an attractive and sustainable development which seeks to regenerate an existing building within the Abergavenny Conservation Area.

 

·         The application had been recommended for approval at the September 2019 Planning Committee meeting. However, on the receipt of late observations from the Department for Works and Pension (DWP) it had been confirmed that the lease on the building had been renewed.  The Local Planning Authority had then deferred consideration of the application to review the late observations.

 

·         Following this review, the Local Planning Authority now believes that the application will fail to comply with Policy E1 of the Local Development Plan (LDP) and has presented the application with a recommendation for refusal.

 

·         The Applicant disputes the stance taken by the Local Planning Authority and argues that, despite the late observations received from the current tenants, the proposed scheme would adhere to Policy E1 and would not prejudice the existing tenants.

 

·         The applicant does not dispute that the tenants renewed their lease on the existing building 12 months ago. However, there is a need to understand the context and history of the renewal of the lease and planning application presented to the Committee today.

 

·         The application with a proposed extension and conversion of the building to residential apartments was submitted to the Local planning Authority in December 2016 following the confirmation of the tenants of their intention to vacate the building due to the gradual downscaling of the business requirements.  This was supported by the fact that the owners had failed to secure tenants for the first and second floor of the building for approximately 14 years despite actively marketing the floors with local agents.

 

·         Due to several requests to the Local Planning Authority regarding the design and viability of the building, the application has taken nearly three years to be determined.

 

·         The Local Planning Authority has supported the change of use of this site to residential use.

 

·         During the application process and several weeks before the tenants were due to vacate the building, the tenants contacted the applicant and sought an extension of the lease as they were still reviewing the status of the building in this location and had not decided on a suitable alternative premises.

 

·         The tenants had therefore negotiated a new lease for ten years with a five year review of break laws. The applicant was unaware at the time that the renewal of the lease would prejudice the application.

 

·         Given the uncertainty of the tenant’s position, the applicant was aware that the tenants could renege on their lease or could agree to terminate the lease at any time with the owner.  This remains a realistic prospect.

 

·         The applicant was minded that any forthcoming planning consent would provide him with a fall-back position for five years in the event that the tenants reneged or terminated their lease when the break / renewal clause expired within four years.

 

·         The Committee was encouraged to support the application given its prominent location within the conservation area. 

 

·         The issue of the planning consent would not prejudice the tenant’s current position as they have a lease in place that can only be terminated with the agreement of both parties.

 

·         In light of the information provided, the applicant considers that the application meets the requirements of Policy E1 and other relevant policies within the LDP.

 

The local Member for Grofield, also a Planning Committee Member informed the Committee that:

 

  • This is an area that was residential in the past.  The lack of parking provision in the area was also a concern for residents.

 

  • The height of the building is a concern to residents, in particular, the mansard roof extension. It was considered that the proposed extension would make the building too high for the surrounding area.

 

Having considered the report and the views expressed, the following points were noted:

 

·         This is an area that was residential in the past.  The lack of parking provision in the area was also a concern for residents.

 

·         The height of the building is a concern to residents, in particular, the mansard roof extension. It was considered that the proposed extension would make the building too high for the surrounding area.

 

·         It was disappointing that there would be no Section 106 funding for affordable housing if the application was approved. However, it was noted that the applicant had provided the correct viability report that had been seen by the District Valuer.  Therefore, if the application had been presented to Committee with a recommendation for approval, it would not have been presented with a recommendation to receive Section 106 funding based on the District Valuer’s full assessment.

 

·         The employment use has not been demonstrated to be defunct.

 

·         The proposed conversion does not sit well within the street scene.

 

·         Cadw had not been consulted as the scheduled ancient monument is in excess of 170 metres from the site.

 

It was proposed by County Councillor G. Howard and seconded by County Councillor S. Woodhouse that application DC/2016/01342 be refused on the following grounds:

 

·         The proposal would result in the loss of an existing business employment site that is still suitable and well-located for employment use and that still has a viable business employment use for the site. The proposal would therefore fail to protect existing employment land from alternative developments contrary to Policy E1 criteria (a) and (c) of the adopted Local Development Plan.

 

·         Design and massing of the additional storey as it was not in keeping with the street scene.

 

Upon being put to the vote, the following votes were recorded:

 

For refusal                            -           12

Against refusal                     -           0

Abstentions                           -           2

 

The proposition was carried.

 

We resolved that application DC/2016/01342 be refused on the following grounds:

 

·         The proposal would result in the loss of an existing business employment site that is still suitable and well-located for employment use and that still has a viable business employment use for the site. The proposal would therefore fail to protect existing employment land from alternative developments contrary to Policy E1 criteria (a) and (c) of the adopted Local Development Plan.

 

·         Design and massing of the additional storey as it was not in keeping with the street scene.

 

Supporting documents: